FCC 88-160 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No. 10
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Commission Policy Regarding
Terrain Shielding in the Evaluation
of Television Translator, Television
Booster and Low Power Television
Applications
POLICY STATEMENT
cause the Commission dealt with relatively small backlogs
of applications, the applications rarely were mutually ex-
clusive, and most proposals were for service in areas of
rugged terrain familiar to the applicants. Thousands of
television translator stations were authorized in this man-
ner and, generally, have operated without causing interfer-
ence.
3. By the time the LPTV rules were adopted in 1982
the processing situation had changed drastically. The Com-
mission then faced a backlog of more than 5,000 applica-
tions proposing translator and LPTV service throughout
the country, and it was apparent that many of these
applications were mutually exclusive. These circumstances
prompted the Commission to conclude in the LPTV pro-
ceeding that it could no longer consider terrain shielding
in the authorization process, where it stated in pertinent
part:
Adopted: April 21, 1988; Released: April 25, 1988
By the Commission:
INTRODUtTION
1. The Commission herein revisits its policy regarding
its treatment of the effects of terrain on propagation in the
Low Power Television Service (LPTV). This action re-
sponds to our concern that some consideration of terrain
shielding in the evaluation of television translator, televi-
sion booster and LPTV applications is essential to the
further authorization of service in many communities. Cir-
cumstances previously prohibiting any such consideration
have changed. Accordingly, although we do not find that
the public interest would be best served by incorporating
considerations of terrain shielding into regular processing
procedures at this time, the Commission will now grant
waivers of its LPTV application acceptance standards con-
cerning interference protection, when such requests are
supported by either terrain studies or, alternatively, the
assent to such grants by stations predicted to receive inter-
ference from proposed facilities, together with a less rigor-
ous terrain showing. This Policy Statement sets forth
general guidelines, on when we will consider terrain
shielding requests, and provides general guidance for the
submission of such requests.
BACKGROUND
2. The Commission's experience and concerns with ac-
counting for the effects of terrain on signal propagation in
the assignment of television translator stations provide an
understanding of both how it could impede the efficiency
of application processing and why we must limit the ap-
plicability of its consideration at this time. During the
years before the Low Power Television Service was cre-
ated, interference protection studies on television tran-
slator applications depended largely on engineering
judgment, where terrain shielding played a major role. In
evaluating the likelihood of interference from proposed
facilities to nearby stations, the Commission staff reviewed
topographic maps and terrain profiles submitted by ap-
plicants. Decisions were sometimes made on the basis of
an assent by stations potentially affected by the grant of
the application, with the understanding that the applicant
would resolve any interference problems. These processing
procedures were then feasible and worked effectively be-
We believe that the overwhelming argument is pre-
sented by our experience with interim applications.
It is far beyond our staff capacity to evaluate in-
dividually thousands of terrain shielding claims .
(Low Power Television Report and Order. 51 RR 2d
476, 495 (1982).]
There is no universally accepted method of predict-
ing the effects of terrain shielding. It would be be-
yond the scope of this proceeding to adopt a general
terrain correction factor, even if we had sufficient
information to enable us to do so. Under these
circumstances, any attempt to allow for terrain
shielding would embroil us in disputes that may not
be susceptible to resolution by accepted standards
and would therefore frustrate our efforts to expedite
grant of low power licenses.
(Reconsideration of LPTV Report and Order, 53 RR
2d 1267, 1274 (1983).]
Since then, and for the same reasons, the Commis-
sion has repeatedly declined to consider terrain
shielding in the evaluation of television translator
and low power television applications. See Tel Radio
Communications Properties, Inc., FCC 85-327, re-
leased June 27, 1985; Kennebec Valley Television
(Channel 3, Augusta, Maine), 60 RR 2d 104, 105
(1986) (and authorities cited therein); Kennebec Val-
ley Television (Channel 12, Rutland, Vermont), 60
RR 2d 107 (1986).
4. Efficient and systematic processing of the more than
30,000 applications flIed in the service has necessitated
strict adherence to our LPTV interference protection stan-
dards (47 C.F.R. 74.705, 74.707 and 74.709). These stan-
dards, in effect, prohibit the overlap of particular field
strength contours, where contour locations are predicted
from station engineering parameters and the Commission's
signal propagation curves (47 C.F.R. 73.699). The stan-
dards in Section 74.707 of the rules also define mutual
exclusivity among pending applications. In order to verit'
compliance with the standards and to determine which
applications are mutually exclusive, the Commission staff
generally relies on computer routines that make thousands
2664
3 FCC Red No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record
of calculations for each application studied. These routines
compute antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) in
pertinent directions and utilize HAAT in predictions of
contour locations. The HAAT is the antenna height above
the average terrain elevation between 3.2 to 16.1
kilometers (2 - 10 miles) from the antenna site. Except for
HAAT, the effects of terrain cannot be incorporated into
these routines until we adopt standard prediction methods,
and we are not yet prepared to do so. Therefore, the
evaluation of terrain shielding claims in LPTV application
studies would involve the use of nonroutine, and possibly
lengthy, engineering analysis.
5. Deviation from normal processing procedures delays
the final disposition of an application. The adverse impact
on expeditious processing is magnified when groups of
mutually exclusive applications are involved, since delays
in the processing of one application in the group, delay
action on the others. Until recently, the majority of the
applications filed in the service have been mutually exclu-
sive with other applications proposing operation in the
same or nearby communities. In many cases, those ap-
plications, in turn, have been mutually exclusive with yet
other applications, and so on. In this manner, hundreds of
applications have been linked in "daisy chains" involving
many channels and communities spread over distances of
hundreds of miles. Even under normal procedures, the
processing of such groups of applications is very time
consuming. For instance, whenever one or more defective
applications in the group is dismissed, a lottery involving
the group cannot take place until the time has passed for
appeals of the staff action and all appeals have been
resolved. Had terrain shielding been involved in deter-
minations of mutual exclusivity, processing would have
been brought to a near halt.
DISCUSSION AND REVISED POLICY
6. Despite the positive effect it has had on our ability to
process applications expeditiously, we are mindful that our
policy on terrain shielding has frustrated well-intentioned
efforts to obtain additional or improved television recep-
tion, particularly in western mountainous areas where ser-
vice is provided primarily by translators. We are aware
that without consideration of terrain, it has been difficult
to file acceptable applications in some areas. Many ap-
plications have been rejected because of predicted interfer-
ence to a nearby station where, in reality, terrain
obstructions may have prevented interference. Because of
these concerns and our wish to authorize desired service
wherever possible, we have looked toward the time when
changing circumstances would permit us to pursue a more
flexible terrain policy.
7. Circumstances have changed considerably since we
received 25,000 LPTV and translator applications in
March of 1984. First, the application backlog, which
reached a peak of 37,000, has been reduced to fewer than
4,000 applications. Second, we have recently observed fa-
vorable changes in application filing patterns. Last sum-
mer, following a three-year filing freeze, we opened the
first nationwide application "filing window," in which only
1,350 applications were filed. Report and Order in the Low
Power Television I Television Translator Sen'ice (Filing
Window II), 2 FCC Red 1278 (1987). Significantly, nearly
500 of these applications were not mutually exclusive with
other applications, and more than 400 of these have al-
ready been granted. Moreover, a relatively low percentage
FCC 88-160
of the window applications are mutually exclusive, and
these are not configured in long and complicated daisy
chains. These factors are enabling much quicker authoriza-
tion of service and are permitting actions to be taken on
many applications without delaying the processing of oth-
ers. While we wish to be cautious, it appears that our
recently revised LPTV window procedures and the institu-
tion of filing fees have resulted in a reduction in incoming
applications. Finally, the implementation of the LPTV
service is now well underway. More than 3,000 construc-
tion permits have been granted since the service began,
and the number of operating LPTV stations has been
increasing steadily.
8. As a result of these changes, the Commission can give
limited consideration to terrain shielding in the LPTV
service. We cannot, at this time, propose standards for
incorporating shielding into regular processing procedures.
However, we will consider, on a case-by-case basis, re-
quests for waiver of Sections 74.705 and 74.707 of our
application acceptance standards, on the grounds of ter-
rain shielding. Waivers must be secured in cases where
proposed new or changed facilities would be predicted to
cause prohibited interference. In order to be considered,
waiver requests must be supported by a demonstration
that the proposed facility would not be expected to inter-
fere at the protected contour of all potentially affected
stations, existing and proposed, because of the intervening
terrain. An applicant may also submit the written assent
to the grant of the waiver by all licensees, permittees and
applicants of potentially affected stations. If the necessary
assent is obtained, the demonstration may be less rigorous
than otherwise expected. Potentially affected stations will
include authorized full-service television, low power televi-
sion and television translator stations, and those proposed
in earlier filed LPTV or translator applications that are
cut-off from further competing applications. As further
discussed in paras. 10 and 11, infra, the supporting docu-
mentation generally should include a graphic description
of the terrain obstructions (terrain profiles). However, in
cases where the assent of affected stations has been dem-
onstrated, our determination to grant the waiver may rely
less on terrain analysis.
9. At this time, we must limit the scope of terrain
waivers because we are uncertain about the administrative
resource impact of specialized manual studies, and because
we want to avoid situations where lengthy analysis of
certain applications delays the processing of other related
applications significantly. We do not know how many
terrain shielding claims will be submitted, nor how much
time, on average, will be involved in evaluating each case.
Accordingly, we will consider terrain shielding waivers
only in connection with the acceptance of applications,
i.e., whether television translator, booster or LPTV ap-
plications should be returned because of predicted inter-
ference to facilities previously proposed or authorized. We
will not consider terrain shielding in determining mutual
exclusivity among applications. We will further limit its
consideration to those applications which, under normal
processing standards and methods, are not found to be
mutually exclusive with one or more applications. Re-
quests for waivers and supporting documentation must be
submitted with applications when filed. Because this is an
acceptability criterion, we will not consider terrain-related
issues raised for the first time in petitions for reconsider-
ation or applications for review of staff actions. Our re-
vised policy on terrain shielding will apply only to
2665
FCC 88-160 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No 10
applications filed on or after the date on which it takes
effect. Finally, our computer data base is not able to
reflect any approved waivers of the acceptance standards
based on terrain shielding. Therefore, applicants seeking
waivers based on terrain shielding must make the required
showing in each case and cannot incorporate by reference
any earlier waiver.
10. We next discuss our general disposition on terrain-
waiver submissions, including the information the Com-
mission will need from applicants to evaluate claims of
noninterference. The expressed assent to the grant of the
waiver by all potentially affected stations would weigh
heavily in our determinations and would obviate total
reliance on terrain studies and permit more expeditious
handling. In that event, we will not expect applicants to
provide detailed terrain profiles, although we will need
some graphic depiction of the terrain in all cases. In
assenting to a waiver, a potentially affected station licensee
would merely concur that interference from a proposed
facility would be unlikely, and it would not object to the
operation of that facility, provided interference did not
occur. We emphasize that we would never construe an
"assent" as a surrender of a station's rights to protection
from any actual interference which may subsequently
arise. (Stations in the LPTV Service, including those for
which terrain-related waivers are granted, will continue to
be secondary to and must not interfere with the regular
off-air reception of full-service television stations.) Upon
grant of the construction permit, and provided that the
engineering parameters of the facility have not changed
and provided that it is not causing interference, aSsent,
once given, cannot be withdrawn. We do not believe the
public interest would be served by requiring a noninter-
fering LPTV station, for example, to discontinue operation
simply because its new owner could not obtain the same
assent afforded to the original owner.
11. Where the assent of a potentially affected station has
not been obtained, a waiver request must be supported by
a terrain study, from which it can be concluded that the
proposed facility would not be likely to interfere at the
authorized station's protected contour. We will not pre-
scribe specific requirements for such showings. However,
in order to conduct any meaningful evaluation, we will
need from applicants accurate profiles of terrain elevations
in the directions in which interference is predicted under
our standards. Normally, interference is predicted along
some arc of a station's protected contour. Applicants
should submit a sufficient number of profiles depicting the
terrain along signal propagation paths between the site of
the proposed facility and the arc of predicted interference.
Profiles may be drawn on rectangular coordinate paper,
where the horizontal axis represents distance in kilometers
and the vertical axis represents elevations above sea level
in meters. Each profile should include the following in-
formation: (1) identification of the topographic map(s),
including its source, from which elevations are taken, (2)
an elevation point showing the proposed height of the
antenna radiation center above sea level, (3) the azimuth
of the terrain path, measured clockwise from True North,
(4) identification, including the call sign, of the protected
station, and (5) a sufficient number of elevation points to
give an accurate representation of the terrain between the
proposed site and the protected contour. Generally, points
should be spaced at regular distances or terrain contour
intervals. However, shorter intervals may be used to re-
flect abrupt changes in elevation. In addition to terrain
profiles, applicants may provide quantitative engineering
analysis, such as calculations of obstruction losses, to sup-
port claims of noninterference.
12. In evaluating terrain showings, the Commission will
consider all information provided by applicants, and may
find it necessary to request additional information, includ-
ing the topographic maps from which terrain elevations
were taken. Failure to provide the requested information
in a timely manner may result in the dismissal of an
application. The nature of our case-by-case evaluations
will depend on the conditions surrounding each case, and
may involve use of a variety of applicable engineering
methods. Applicants, rather than the Commission staff,
will bear the burden of supporting waiver requests. In no
instance will we grant such a waiver where it would be
apparent to us that interference would occur within the
protected contour of an authorized station. Although
LPTV, translator and booster stations generally are au-
thorized on a noninterference basis, station authorizations
granted with a terrain-related waiver will be explicitly
conditioned on noninterference to all stations predicted to
receive interference, without consideration of terrain
shielding. This condition also will appear on any subse-
quent authorization resulting from the assignment or
transfer of the facility to another party. This will provide
clear notice that LPTV, translator and booster operators
bear responsibility for eliminating such interference.
13. We have elected to proceed in this matter by policy
Statement, rather than by rule making, in order to ex-
pedite consideration of terrain shielding factors in our
application process and to thereby accelerate the provision
of additional service to the public. This procedural ap-
proach is both appropriate and permissible under the
express provision of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) exempting general statements of policy from rule
making requirements. 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(3)(A). In
this regard, we note that our action here simply describes
the class of cases in which we will consider terrain shield-
ing showings. It does not purport to establish the stan-
dards by which such showings will be evaluated or to
determine the disposition of such cases in advance. On the
contrary, it is clear from the policy statement that these
decisional concerns will be addressed in the context of the
particular facts presented in individual applications at the
time the applications are processed. These characteristics
are consistent with those that the courts have considered
significant in classifying an agency action as a general
statement of policy for APA purposes. See, e.g., Tele-
communications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 800
F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v.
FPC, 506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
CONCLUSION
14. In this Policy Statement, the Commission has re-
laxed its policy regarding consideration of terrain shielding
in the LFTV service. Subject to certain limitations, we will
waive our LPTV application acceptance standards when-
ever it can be made apparent to us that terrain shielding
would provide adequate interference protection. Accord-
ingly, we will grant waiver requests supported either by
well-documented terrain showings or by the written assent
of all potentially affected stations, together with less rigor-
ous terrain showings. We are confident that our revised
policy, resulting from changed processing circumstances,
will provide opportunities for additional LPTV, translator
2666
3 FCC Red No. 10 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-160
and booster service in areas of the country where terrain
shielding is a significant factor. We will observe the effect
of this policy on application processing efficiency and the
extent to which it permits the authorization of additional
stations. If future circumstances should warrant, we will
again revisit this policy and make appropriate adjustments.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
H. Walker Feaster, III
Acting Secretary
2667